Building New Nuclear Plants

Building New Nuclear Plants, Companies Hit Bumps in the Road

This is the second article in a series of three on U.S. nuclear power expansion plans.

By Andrzej Zwaniecki Staff Writer

Washington - Advanced nuclear reactors could be the U.S. power industry's key to a new era of expansion.

Because of their simpler designs, Generation III+ reactors - as they are known - are safer and more fuel efficient than their predecessors, engineering experts and industry executives say. The simpler designs of Generation III+ reactors also promise to make them easier and less costly to assemble and operate.

U.S. energy companies are considering ordering five types of such reactors designed by French, U.S. and Japanese manufacturers. (Find out more about reactor types ( http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/newreactordesigns/ )). So far, only one - Westinghouse's AP1000 - has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the industry's main regulator. (See interactive diagrams of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor ( http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/exploreap1000.html ), Ariva U.S. EPR ( http://www.areva-np.com/scripts/us/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=670&L=US&SYNC=Y ), GE Hitachi ESBWR ( http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/passive_safety_system.htm ), and Mitsubishi U.S.-APWR ( http://www.mhi.co.jp/atom/hq/atome_e/apwr/index.html ).) From the engineering point of view, the quality of Generation III+ designs is "quite good," according to Michael Corradini, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin-M adison. However, because no such reactor has been built yet (the first is scheduled to start producing electricity in China in 2013), it is too early to say if they will live up to their promise in terms of performance.

THE ROAD AHEAD

As of May, 17 energy companies and consortia in the United States had applied for permits and licenses related to 22 planned reactors, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry group. (See an NEI table on new nuclear plant status ( http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/graphicsandcharts/newnuclearplantstatus/ ).) Several more companies are mulling applications. Most are "reserving places in a [regulatory] queue as placeholders to keep future options open," according to Nuclear Engineering International, a trade magazine. That is because "the moment you start digging and pouring concrete you must spend much more money," Corradini said. The ultimate number of units actually built will depend on how successfully nuclear projects navigate the new licensing process and meet cost, schedule and performance targets, said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the institute.

Despite design and regulatory improvements, the road is still arduous. A power company must get the NRC to approve the site of a new plant and its design as well as to issue a license to build and operate it. Once the company receives the required permissions from the NRC, it can proceed with ordering components and construction. The entire process - from submitting the application to completing the construction - is likely to take 10 years for the first few units, and six years thereafter at best, according to Marvin Fertel, the head of the NEI.

The government has tried to streamline the licensing process to make it faster, more efficient and thus less costly for the industry. For instance, now, companies can re-evaluate their decisions at various points in the process without heavy financial losses. They also can apply for a combined construction and operating license known as COL, which before required two separate steps. "The new process is working," Corradini said. "But it hasn't been tested all the way through" as the NRC is yet to issue the first COL (expected by the industry in 2011 or 2012). Some companies already have slightly delayed their projects due to receiving more inquiries than expected from the NRC.

Energy companies believe that standardized designs will help them expedite licensing and lower the cost of procuring components and constructing, operating and maintaining plants. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko called the failure to standardize the current fleet of nuclear reactors "one of the greatest missed opportunities."

"We have approximately 104 unique nuclear reactors in the United States," he said. In contrast, the U.S. Navy and power companies in France have standardized their nuclear fleets with good results.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF AN INDUSTRY

The U.S. nuclear power industry faces problems dating to the previous era of an interrupted expansion.

Most U.S. manufacturers of heavy components for reactors that operated in the 1970s and 1980s have closed down or moved operations overseas because U.S. business dried up. Now, many are overwhelmed by demand. Attempts at rebuilding the U.S. nuclear manufacturing base have started: In 2007-2009, the number of U.S. companies certified to manufacture nuclear-grade equipment increased by a quarter, according to the NEI. In 2009, two overseas and three U.S. companies announced several ventures to manufacture heavy components and build a new uranium enrichment plant in the United States. But even if most nuclear projects take off, these efforts will not suffice, analysts say.

In addition, the industry faces a dearth of skilled labor to run and maintain even the existing plants. During recent decades, colleges and universities stopped producing nuclear engineers and skilled nuclear workers as there was little work for them. (In 2005, encouraged by incentives from the power industry and governments, higher education reintroduced nuclear programs of study.)

"The engineers who built the last generation of nuclear plants are graying, and replacing them presents a potential bottleneck for the nuclear sector for a few years," said Deborah Mann, director of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

George Vanderheyden, president of the UniStar Nuclear Energy consortium, which plans to build four nuclear plants in the United States, believes that the first few new projects should not have major problems with qualified labor or timely supplies as they have planned how to deal with the constraints in advance. For example, Bechtel, UniStar's builder, has entered into agreement with labor unions to train construction workers to build a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland.

"But further down the road - if we decide to build 100 plants or more - people are going to struggle getting what [and who] they need," he said.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)

ENDS

© Scoop Media